If there are no good solutions or good moves to be made directly at the DPRK, then don't make any. From the article:

So what to do? Well, the first thing is to recognize that there are no good solutions. But perhaps the least bad option would be to openly declare that America already considers the North Korean regime to be China’s puppet, and that North Korean misdeeds are really Chinese misdeeds. That would come at a price, too. But it would incentivize China either to rein in the North Korean regime or, eventually, get rid of it.

Not exactly sure what you could or should do to incentivize China to rein in NK without poking the dragon but at this point deflecting the booger to them may be the only option. But that option would have to be more than just the US imposing some penalty on China. That would quickly pit China vs. US instead of inflicting damage on the DPRK regime, it would have to be the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, the PI, etc... imposing some significant economic/diplomatic concerted action to bring about some change in behavior.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Russia and China can wag their fingers at us all they want. At the end of the day, this is 100% their fucking monster. Russia as recently as the 90's and China continuing to this very day. But as great an idea as it is, pinning this tail on the dragon is not going to be that easy.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ready to tie pme to this? One of my silly awc papers was on North Korea and my "feedback" was something to the effect of "you didn't propose anything that hasn't already been discussed." No kidding.....his has been an issue for almost 70 years. So now-for the rest of my life-when I read about North Korea it just makes me pissed off at pme.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Russia and China can wag their fingers at us all they want. At the end of the day, this is 100% their fucking monster. Russia as recently as the 90's and China continuing to this very day. But as great an idea as it is, pinning this tail on the dragon is not going to be that easy.

Blame for the Norks developing Nukes goes waaaay back. A few timeline/highlights;

- 1959, Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: North Korea and the Soviet Union sign a cooperation agreement under which the Soviet Union would provide basic nuclear training and technology to its Korean allies. The agreement spawns plans for a nuclear facility near Yongbyon that would later become a flashpoint with the US. Note; Yongbyon Nuclear Reactor is where the Norks are currently producing/enriching their fissile material for these Nuke Test, etc.

- 1962, Spinning Up Research: North Korea completes the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Centre, which includes an IRT-2000 research reactor.

- 1963, On the Market: The USSR sells nuclear materials to the North Korean government.

- 1965, Fission Experiments: Once the Yongbyon reactor reaches a power rating of 2 MW, North Korea begins to pursue fission experiments.

- 1970s, Friends Without Benefits: Throughout the 1970s, the North Korean government attempts to acquire nuclear weapons assistance from the Soviet Union and China, but the communist superpowers refuse. North Korea also offers to form a secret nuclear program with South Korea, but the South declines.

- 1984, Recycling: The construction of a plutonium reprocessing facility enables North Korea to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.

- 1986, Overreacting: North Korea completes construction of a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor that can produce plutonium. It also starts construction of a second, larger nuclear reactor.

- 1989, Caught Red-Handed: Using satellite images, the United States obtains conclusive evidence that North Korea has a nuclear weapons program.

-1991, Run for the Border: North Korea tries to hire Soviet nuclear physicists to boost its weapons program, but the Soviet Union gets wind of the plan and detains the scientists.

- 1993 to now; Along comes Clinton, Bush, and Obama, all of whom epically screwed the pooch when it comes to the Norks Nuke program. Now it's President Trump turn in the barrel and it appear the Norks (with assistance) have perfected a functional thermonuclear warhead and ICBM's that can reach the USA. The next logical step will be the Nuke warhead/ICBM mating process.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Don't blame anything but US foreign policy to explain why the North Koreans are going full-tilt in their nuclear program, consequences be damned. Gaddafi ended his nuclear program at our behest and he ended up getting stabbed in the rear with a bayonet and summarily executed, with our blessing. You think we'd have bombed Libya and let it get overrun by militias if they had nukes? Ukraine got the other end of the stick, giving up their nukes post-independence in exchange for territorial guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK. How's that working out?

The last twenty years or so have just reinforced the fact that there are two kinds of countries, those that have nukes and those that don't. The Kim regime is completely rational in pursuing them. The best way for them to ensure their continued reign is a dozen nuclear-armed ICBMs. They can't use them unless they want to be annihilated, but they take the conventional regime change option 100% off the table. No one cares enough about North Korea to risk ten million dead civilians.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ready to tie pme to this? One of my silly awc papers was on North Korea and my "feedback" was something to the effect of "you didn't propose anything that hasn't already been discussed." No kidding.....his has been an issue for almost 70 years. So now-for the rest of my life-when I read about North Korea it just makes me pissed off at pme.

UFB or in today's AF totally believable... new for the sake of new, not whether or not it is academically worthy of discussion, it's new so good...

13 minutes ago, sforron said:

Don't blame anything but US foreign policy to explain why the North Koreans are going full-tilt in their nuclear program, consequences be damned.

The last twenty years or so have just reinforced the fact that there are two kinds of countries, those that have nukes and those that don't. T

Yup - if you're a rogue nation, get nukes, you will never be f'd with by the do-gooders ever again. Wish it weren't so but from the perspective of Iran, NK, other bad actors it is the best use of their resources from their perspective

If we want to halt the growth of the Nuclear Club, then we have to admit that we have separate policies for the legacy nuclear powers and everyone else. Don't apologize for it and don't discuss it, just state it as fact, more diplomatically than that... but the West + the democracies of Asia (India, SK, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia) should declare that they will have no trade relations with new nuclear weapons powers, declared or suspected. No trade, no travel except diplomatic, no aid, nothing.... if we don't give a HUGE disincentive to developing nuclear weapons, all the other bad actors of the world (Govs and Non-State Actors) have every reason to cuddle up to NK to try to get some of that garlic that keeps the West at bay...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

::cough cough:: Israel would be a difficult case for a "no aid to non-legacy nuclear powers" policy...

That policy would also be pretty hypocritical for India and Pakistan (the latter which you left off your democracies of Asia list), since they only got their nukes relatively recently and are not signatories to the NPT themselves.

The who situation is fucked with zero even passable options, and it's been a shit sandwich handed down from POTUS to POTUS for many, many years.

IMHO the best way we can demonstrate that a negotiated, non-nuclear third way exists for other countries out there that oppose the US/West is to uphold and respect the JCPOA with Iran. They are a bad actor just like DPRK and we're not suddenly friends now, but negotiating that agreement in the first place and living by it and enforcing it now shows the world there is a third option other than US-led regime change or nuking-up.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

::cough cough:: Israel would be a difficult case for a "no aid to non-legacy nuclear powers" policy...

That policy would also be pretty hypocritical for India and Pakistan (the latter which you left off your democracies of Asia list), since they only got their nukes relatively recently and are not signatories to the NPT themselves.

The who situation is fucked with zero even passable options, and it's been a shit sandwich handed down from POTUS to POTUS for many, many years.

IMHO the best way we can demonstrate that a negotiated, non-nuclear third way exists for other countries out there that oppose the US/West is to uphold and respect the JCPOA with Iran. They are a bad actor just like DPRK and we're not suddenly friends now, but negotiating that agreement in the first place and living by it and enforcing it now shows the world there is a third option other than US-led regime change or nuking-up.

Touche but I would square that circle by some admission of private knowledge / assistance historically not currently of Israel's nuclear deterrence and not concede the point. Just because some sanctimonious hypocritical windbag at the UN or media talking head is upset at that not everything is being done exactly as they think it should be, who cares. Take a page from the authoritarian powers and just DGAF what unrealistic peaceniks, the naive activist crowd and other assorted coddled, spoiled and really childish people think.

Pakistan's exclusion from my off the cuff list was not intentional but I would still not include it, democracy (IMO) is not just elections that are somewhat free/fair. It's also the absence of other bad behavior, like assisting the Taliban or other terrorist organizations (cough couch attack in India)...

Honest question, do you really believe Iran is not working at least towards breakout capability so that at the appropriate time, they will be able to go from nuclear weapons capable to at least nuclear explosive device (weaponization is another matter) in a matter of months? I'm not saying based on that, that a military option is called for or justified but I have no illusions they are still working getting as close as they can to having a nuclear weapon without getting detected so they have to option to breakout, demonstrate capability and then just say it's done, we will never give them up and deal with it.

The West being led by people now who lack even the testicular fortitude to stand up and control their own borders or expel violent illegal aliens will likely navel gaze and fold like a house of cards, but I'm not cynical, not one bit...

If you want a third way that is negotiated fine, I can support that but you have to be realistic. These nations will not be cajoled, shamed or convinced by moral persuasion that them not having nuclear weapons is better than having them. It has to be negotiation with the possible outcome of no further relationship and as much isolation/pain without direct conflict as possible to have even a hope of getting something acceptable to us.

As to Iran, what's done is done. Watch them like a hawk, arm the Saudis, give Israel LO deep strike capability (conventional) and foil them everywhere you can.

As for NK, offer them a period of detente, negotiate with them directly along with the other regional powers and go on the diplomatic / informational offensive and while foiling them every way you can clandestinely. Propose things never seriously discussed and try to break the ice, but just give up on the idea they will ever give up their nuclear weapons, who would looking at recent history if they were on the other side of the table from us?

Edited September 7 by Clark Griswold

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hey, Pakistan's had a whole one electoral transfer of power not get derailed, they're definitely up there with Athens and the Continental Congress in terms of democracy. Pay no attention to the fact that their intelligence agency is basically a terror organization.

"What does conventional conflict look like with a nuclear element?" - CSAF

Sir, conventional war with a nuclear element looks like nuclear war.

If I bring a gun to a knife fight, is it still a knife fight?

Brilliant.

If NK uses a nuclear weapon, I'm fairly confident that NCA will drop orders to make sections of that country into glass-floored self-lighting parking lots, and the commanders of NORTHCOM and STRATCOM won't have much of a say in it.